Colour Science & Perception
what the eye settles, and what it cannot
The collection

Every essay — page 26

Page 26 of 40, continuing through the fields in the same order.

What light is What the eye does Matching and measuring Difference and uniformity What the brain does What a scene does What a camera does Where the model breaks What it takes to deliver it

SeriesObserversNamed objectsRefutationsSearch

Matching and measuring

CIE XYZ, chromaticity, and gamut — a system for predicting when two lights match, frequently mistaken for a system that predicts how they look.

Which way each tolerance is tightest, colour by colour. Sixty-four colours on a lattice through the sRGB cube, with lightness across the bottom. For each, the tolerance ΔE₀₀ 1 is pulled back into tristimulus values and its shortest and longest axes are found. The filled points are the angle between each colour's shortest axis and the direction common to all of them: a median of 15 degrees, ninety per cent within 32. The open points are the same for the longest axis, at 23. The common short axis is 3.1 degrees from X up and Y down, which is the direction of a*.

A tolerance has a grain

A colour tolerance pulled back into tristimulus values is a long thin shape, and across the whole sRGB cube its shortest axis points the same way, fifteen degrees off at the median — the direction in which X rises as Y falls, which is the direction of a*. So what one colour difference allows depends on which way a delivery drifts. An instrument's X filter may age 1.4 per cent before the tolerance is used up, its Z filter 5.1, and the light on the sample 9.3.

6 figures What a small neutral deviation costs as the grey darkens, in two lightness scales. The price of a fixed fraction of deviation on a neutral — how much lightness it is worth per unit of luminance — from L 40 down to L 0.25, both axes logarithmic. CIELAB's L is a straight line below L 8 and its price there is exactly flat. The appearance model's J′ has no straight piece: its price keeps rising, by a factor of 5.0 across the same range, as the luminance to the power -0.442 — the derived exponent is -0.441 in an average surround.

The appearance model has no straight piece

CIELAB's lightness is a straight line below L* 8, so a deviation near black has a fixed price and a black has a floor under it. CIECAM16 has no such piece. Its lightness near zero goes as the luminance to a power set by the room, the price of a deviation rises without limit as the black deepens — as Y to the power −0.44 in a lit room and −0.58 in a dark one — and on a projected black a lightness unit in the model allows under half the luminance change a unit of L* allows.

7 figures Four mixtures of display primaries, bowing by different amounts in two units. The half-and-half mixture of each pair of sRGB primaries, measured from the midpoint of the two readings as a share of the pair's own separation. The upper bar is ΔE₀₀ and the lower is the appearance model's J′a′b′. In ΔE₀₀ green and blue bows most, at 25 per cent; in the model it is red and blue, at 20, and blue and yellow falls from 22 to 12. The right-hand column gives the model's distance with its power correction, which is smaller than the Euclidean one for every pair here.

Which mixture bows most depends on the ruler

The physical half-and-half mixture of two lights misses the midpoint of their two readings in any unit a person is shown, and the share it misses by is about the same in ΔE₀₀ and in the appearance model's own space — 12.8 and 14.6 per cent at the median. Which mixtures miss most is not. The rank correlation between the two units is 0.57, a display's blue and yellow is the worst pair in one and the mildest in the other, and the smaller number usually quoted for the appearance model is its power correction rather than a straighter line.

7 figures Where a press's variation lies, and where the tolerance charges for it. Each printed patch's sheet-to-sheet variation under four stated mixes of press variation, split along the three axes of a one-unit ΔE₀₀ tolerance at that patch, tightest first. The upper bar of each pair is the share of the variation along each axis and the lower the share of the price, averaged over 29 patches. For an even mix the tightest axis holds 1.5% of the variation and pays 29% of the price, and the loosest holds 83% and pays 36%. For inking alone the tightest axis holds 2.0% of the variation and pays 34% of the price, and the loosest holds 79% and pays 28%. For a gain-led press the tightest axis holds 1.8% of the variation and pays 29% of the price, and the loosest holds 83% and pays 39%. For a trap-led press the tightest axis holds 1.6% of the variation and pays 29% of the price, and the loosest holds 82% and pays 35%.

A press is charged for the direction it barely moves

A press run varies almost entirely along the direction a colour tolerance forgives. Split along the tolerance's own axes under four stated mixes of press variation, its tightest axis holds about one per cent of the sheet-to-sheet variation and pays a quarter to a third of the price — and on a blue overprint four fifths, for the balance between two inking units rather than the level of either.

6 figures The straight line between two colours, and the formula's own shortest path. Five gradients seen from above, in the a and b plane of CIELAB: the straight line between the two colours in grey, and the shortest path under ΔE₀₀'s own local metric in colour. The lightness coordinate bows too and is not drawn. red to green saves 3.6 per cent and leaves the straight line by 13; blue to yellow saves 7.5 per cent and leaves the straight line by 21; cyan to magenta saves 3.9 per cent and leaves the straight line by 10; black to white saves 0.0 per cent and leaves the straight line by 0; red to blue saves 0.3 per cent and leaves the straight line by 4 CIELAB units at the widest. Black to white is the flat case: its shortest path is the straight one.

The straight line is not the shortest gradient

A colour difference formula says what a small step costs at every colour, and that is enough to ask which path between two colours is shortest. It is not the straight line: between red and green the shortest path bows thirteen CIELAB units away, saves four per cent — and stays inside sRGB on every step where the straight line leaves it. The formula's own answer for the two endpoints, meanwhile, is neither length.

6 figures The metamerism index, computed three ways, as the reference match loosens. The special metamerism index of 6 metameric pairs under an incandescent test light, against how well each pair matches under the reference light. Uncorrected, the index absorbs the reference mismatch and rises from 2.86 to 3.76. Corrected multiplicatively it rises to 3.31 and additively to 3.87. All three are the same number when the pair matches exactly, which is the only case the definition covers.

The metamerism index has two corrections

The index for a metameric pair is defined for a pair that matches exactly under the reference light, and no real pair does. The standard's remedy is to correct the sample first, and it names two corrections — scale the tristimulus values, or add the difference. On six pairs matched to one colour difference, the two answers differ by a tenth to four tenths of an index unit; at two, by a whole one.

6 figures Two uniform spaces, two answers: cyan to magenta. The gradient from above, in the a and b plane. The grey line is the straight path in CIELAB; the two coloured curves are the shortest paths under ΔE₀₀'s own local metric and under CAM16-UCS's. They are 15.7 CIELAB units apart at their furthest, against bows from the straight line of 9.9 and 12.2. Both spaces are published as uniform and both are used to decide what lies between two colours; they do not agree.

Two uniform spaces disagree about between

ΔE₀₀'s own local behaviour says which colours lie between two colours, and so does CAM16-UCS's. They do not agree. On cyan to magenta the two shortest paths run fifteen CIELAB units apart — more than either runs from the straight line — and on that gradient ΔE₀₀ would rather have the straight line than CAM16-UCS's answer. Getting the comparison at all takes noticing that one of the two has no local metric: its published difference is a Euclidean distance raised to the power 0.63, and a power below one has an infinite derivative at zero.

6 figures What a gamut charges a gradient, against what the relaxation's noise is. For each gradient, how much longer the best path that stays inside sRGB is than the free shortest path, as a percentage of the free one. The shaded band is the relaxation's own noise, measured by relaxing the same free path from two different starting points: 0.42 per cent at its worst. Every excess is inside it. So holding a gradient inside a display's gamut costs nothing measurable in the metric's own units, on any of these pairs — including the ones whose free path is outside at most of its points.

A gamut charges a gradient nothing

On red to green the shortest path happened to stay inside sRGB where the straight line did not, and that was called a coincidence of mechanism. Made into a measurement it is not a coincidence: constraining a path to stay inside the gamut costs less of the metric's own length than the relaxation's own noise, on every gradient tested — including the ones whose free shortest path is outside at fifteen of its twenty-one steps. The gamut's boundary and the metric's cheap region point the same way, and the price of the constraint is nothing.

6 figures How often the choice of correction changes a pair's grade. Eighteen metameric pairs walked to each of eleven reference mismatches, with the share whose index falls in a different band under the two corrections the standard allows. At an exact match the share is zero and must be: there is nothing for either correction to correct. It rises to 44 per cent at a reference mismatch of 2, which is the quality a dyehouse reaches rather than the quality a laboratory constructs. The banding is a five-step convention at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3, stated here rather than quoted, and how much the count depends on it is drawn separately.

The ambiguity is largest where the index is used

The metamerism index is defined for a pair that matches exactly under the reference light, no real pair does, and the two corrections the standard allows for the residual give different answers. Over eighteen pairs at eleven match qualities the gap is nearly a function of the mismatch alone — its middle half spans a factor of 1.4 at the mismatches a dyehouse reaches — so it could be tabulated. And it is largest exactly there: zero at a laboratory's match, and re-grading eight pairs in eighteen at a trade's.

7 figures Three uniform spaces, three answers: red to blue. The gradient from above, in the a and b plane: CIELAB's straight line, and the shortest paths under ΔE₀₀'s local metric, under CAM16-UCS's and under Oklab's, whose shortest path is its own straight line carried back into CIELAB. They bow from CIELAB's line by 14.4, 42.5 and 42.6 units. ΔE₀₀'s and CAM16-UCS's paths run 28.3 apart at their furthest, Oklab's runs 29.0 from ΔE₀₀'s and 5.6 from CAM16-UCS's, and the space furthest from the other two here is ΔE₀₀.

A third space breaks the tie only once

ΔE₀₀ and CAM16-UCS disagree about which colours lie between two colours. Oklab was the obvious tie-breaker, and it breaks the tie on one gradient of five: on red to blue its path runs within six CIELAB units of CAM16-UCS's and twenty-nine from ΔE₀₀'s. On red to green and cyan to magenta it keeps to CIELAB's straight line while both others bow, and on blue to yellow it bows further than either. Each of the three spaces is the odd one out somewhere. Asking also exposed a CAM16-UCS path that had never converged.

7 figures Six starts for every held gradient, and where each one lands. Each row is one gradient held inside a gamut, relaxed from six starts: the straight line, the free shortest path, and the straight line bent towards and away from the neutral axis and up and down in lightness. Each dot is how much longer than the free shortest path that start's result is, on a logarithmic scale from a hundredth of a per cent to a thousand; the ring marks the best. The first 10 rows are gradients between colours on a coated CMYK press's boundary whose straight line leaves the press: their best routes cost a median of 0.12% and at most 1.1%, and on 5 of them some start lands at more than twice the free length. The next 3 are the display gradients held inside sRGB, whose best cost at most 1.3% and whose starts spread by at most 4.2%. The last 6 are press gradients that never leave, where no start is trapped.

A press makes the cheap route a search

Holding a gradient inside a display's gamut cost nothing measurable, and the essay that found it credited the gamut's convexity. A press's gamut is not convex: 216 of 630 straight lines between colours on its own hue ring leave it. Holding gradients inside the press still costs little at best, a median of a tenth of a per cent. But the best route depends on where the relaxation starts, the free path is the best start on one gradient of ten, and on half of them some start is trapped at more than twice the free length. On the display no start is trapped.

6 figures The same gradients, priced by a penalty and by a projection. Each row is one gradient held inside a coated press from six starts. The pale dots are the penalised relaxation — a free step, with a price for leaving the press — and the dark ones are the projected relaxation, which takes the free step and then moves each point to the nearest printable colour. Across is how much longer than the free path each result is, logarithmic. On the 10 gradients whose straight line leaves the press, the penalty leaves 9 starts at more than twice the free length and the projection leaves none. The projection's best route costs a median 0.02% against the penalty's 0.13%, and its spread across starts is 0.95% against 132.5%.

A projection has no reason to detour

Holding a gradient inside a press by penalising the excursion turned the gamut's price from a number into a search: on five of ten crossing gradients some starting point leaves the relaxation trapped at more than twice the free length, and the spread across six starts runs to 271 per cent of the free path. Replacing the penalty with a projection — take the free step, then move each point to the nearest printable colour — leaves no trap on any gradient and a spread of 0.06 to 2.4 per cent.

5 figures